By Jordan Simmons

In 2019, 66% percent of high school graduates immediately enrolled in college following graduation. By and large, many in the United States still see college as the route to go in starting their professional careers. With the pervasive college wage premium, opportunities for promotion and doors opened by having a degree, it is not difficult to understand why this is. However, what is often overlooked in this narrative is that many do not pursue a degree at a 4-year institution. Of the 66% enrollees, about a third attend two year institutions.

One way lawmakers have sought to increase degree attainment and college attendance has been the creation of tuition-assistance programs for those who attend community college, immediately after high school. In practice, many of these programs have meant tuition-free schooling for many who might not otherwise be able to afford it. However, between the strict rules of these programs, many are left to fall between the cracks and will never be able to take advantage of these opportunities. To help prevent this, I propose a nationwide loosening of application deadline rules for these programs and a scrapping of certain requirements that put certain students at a disadvantage, when compared to their peers in other states.

But why does this matter?

By and large, community colleges are attended by lower income students. In 2019, 67% of community college students came from households which pulled in less than $50,000 per year. Among students who come from households of less than $20,000, 47% of them were considered “independent”, or nontraditional students, compared to the 22% of students from households making above $50,000. The category of independent is very wide, but typically encompasses those who attend college without the financial support of parents. According to a 2016 Federal Student Aid report an independent student can be someone who is “at least 24 years old; married; a graduate or professional student; a veteran; an orphan, in foster care, or ward of the court; a member of the armed forces; an emancipated minor; someone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless; or having legal dependents other than a spouse.” Thus, community colleges take an important role in wealth creation for low and lower-income households and by nature help increase income equality. The onset of these tuition-assistance programs has largely been positive, encouraging the attainment of a degree, which has consistently been shown to lead to higher future earnings, but that also inversely means that every student who falls through the cracks is another that potentially continues the cycle of generational poverty.

Being from Tennessee, our version of this program, the Tennessee Promise, was a widely shared opportunity. However, that doesn’t automatically mean everyone who could have taken advantage of it did. My mom worked as an adult mentor to help kids through their appli- cation process for three cycles and she is lucky if 2 out of 10 students complete their paperwork in-time. Of those originally in her group, 4-6 kids are expected to go to a 4-year institution or a technical school, alongside the additional two who choose Promise. However, this still means that 2-4 kids end up with no place to go after the process. For many, they may have had a spot at a university, a job, or an apprenticeship lined-up, but due to unforeseen circumstances those opportunities are either no longer available or desired. The problem is that once the paperwork deadline for Promise passes, you are no longer eligible for the program and have to pay the full tuition. My mom always gets calls from young adults who have hit this same predicament, but there is nothing she can do; almost all end up going into the workforce before most of us have even set foot on campus, a workforce in which promotional opportunities are virtually non-existent for those without degrees. Looking at the 2021 Tennessee Promise annual report, the overall statistics are not much better. Across the six yearly TN Promise cohorts, excluding 2020, only an average of 29.28% who applied for Promise ended up enrolling in college. Those who are being excluded are those traditionally with less. Compared to the median adjusted gross income of the applicant pool, Promise’s fourth, fifth, and sixth enrolling cohorts (less than 30% of the original pool) had AGIs that were $6,174, $4,888, and $3,234 higher than their respective, original pools.

I believe that these program applications, which are typically only available to soon-to-be or recent high school graduates, should be available for students until they turn at least 22, if not 24. Students should not have to forgo this life-changing opportunity due to a reason so small as the time at which they turned in their papers. Many, as seniors, have other immediate concerns, whether it be graduation, prom, providing for their family, etc. Students should not be penalized for this. Furthermore, 4-year college students are afforded two to four years to freely figure out their studies so why should we force those of us not going to these same institutions to make a similarly binding choice before even graduating high school?

The reason many of these programs have such strict deadlines senior year is because there is a real fear that once students graduate and enter the workforce, they are drastically less likely to re-enter schooling. In a 2017-2018 North Carolina State University survey of the top challenges for community college students, the “expenses” category was ranked second place, with books, school supplies, tuition, and child- care being listed. College is expensive and that can cause trepidation among those considering applying, even if they already have a full-time job. But what happens if going back is essentially free? With income gains mainly happening by degree-holding employees it is only natural that many who originally chose or were forced to go straight into the workforce might later want to go back and secure their degree, mirroring the increasing number of adults going back to school. Thus, by increasing the availability for receiving these funds the government would be remedying two issues: students not being able to access tuition-assistance resources because of late paperwork and young adults not going back to school after going into the workforce.

Currently, 23 states (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode island, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Kansas, Virginia, South Dakota, West Virginia, New York, Indiana and Washington) all offer some form of this tuition assistance program, with most guaranteeing free tuition conditioned upon a range of various requirements and some extending this offer to 4-year institutions. Though these programs all share the same general theme of tuition assistance or tuition-free, two-year college, they all slightly differ in terms of requirements and conditions. For example, six of the states require high demand fields. The California program is only available for one year, and both it and Rhode Island programs require that students complete a total of 30 credit hours (each year). In Oklahoma’s program students must apply in 8th, 9th, or 10th grade.

This is not only extremely confusing, it makes reform to our college tuition-assistance systems infinitely more difficult as reform will be delegated to a host of local levels, each with vastly different political climates, priorities, and motivations. To be able to implement the changes more easily, I believe it is necessary to make each program managed at the federal level, to a greater degree, so that change can also be instigated at this level. The process of this would likely be long, require significant political will that doesn’t exist and would likely face a lot of backlash. So as an alternative to federal regulation, I also propose that as all the suggestions I am about to make will inherently cost states more money to their, as it will mean increased enrollment in these programs, the federal government will cover the extra costs of these implementations. This will take the financial burden off directly the shoulders of the states and would virtually eliminate all incentives to resist loosening of restrictions, while still creating more opportunities for America’s future generations and preserve the individual autonomy that some states might place a premium on.

Regarding other general suggestions, not only should these tuition-assistance programs be expanded to each state but they should also all cover the full tuition, regardless of major and legal record (Delaware specifically prohibits those with felonies on their records from taking part in their program), for both years of community college. Access to quality community college, free of charge, is an amazing opportunity that should not be unavailable just because of the state one is born in. For whatever flaws these programs have, they still do tremendous work in boosting enrollment rates, and though there are debates about whether a college degree is worth it in today’s economy, it is still by and large one of the most accessible ways to create socioeconomic change and break cycles of generational poverty; as such everyone in this country deserves to have equal access to it.

Lastly, programs should do away with their 30-credit or full-time schooling requirements, only mandating part-time schooling as a minimum. Many students in community colleges are juggling between school and a near-full or full-time job (if not multiple) to support themselves. 33.95% of all community college students are considered to be “independent” generally meaning they have their own bills to pay. In the same North Carolina State University survey, 34% of respondents said their work hours did not leave them enough time for studying. Even for those who are legally dependent, they may have to take care of younger siblings, give a portion of their paycheck to their parents, or take care of their own children. Regardless, 64.2% of community students attend part-time, so why force those in tuition-assistance programs to conform to a tighter standard? In this light, these requirements can come as an unwelcome and unneeded burden to many simply trying to make ends meet.

Tuition assistance programs serve a vital role in decreasing income inequality, creating socio-economic change, and breaking generational cycles of poverty. By giving more young adults who might not otherwise be able to afford college an opportunity to attend, a higher-paid workforce can be fostered. While these are great opportunities, in my community many students miss these opportunities through no fault of their own. I can hardly imagine that Tennessee is the only place where young adults fall through the cracks, so we must change age-eligibility to remedy this pattern. Additionally, there are problems of equal opportunity created by each state having their own specific guidelines for tuition-assistance programs. Many states put their community college students at a disadvantage or unfairly burden them with one or two rules that many others do not share. Though local variation should be permitted, by and large the rules that disadvantage some in comparison to others should be scrapped for a nationwide set of principles to serve as a base for these programs and an example for other states to adopt.